Content uploaded by Jeff Wilks
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeff Wilks on Sep 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tourism in Marine Environments, Vol. 12, No. 3–4, pp. 211–219 1544-273X/17 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427317X15016348972677
Copyright © 2017 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 2169-0197
www.cognizantcommunication.com
211
Address correspondence to Jeff Wilks, Griffith Health IDEAS, Griffith University, 68 University Drive, Meadowbrook,
QLD 4131 Australia. Tel +61 7 3382 1316; E-mail: j.wilks@griffith.edu.au
Lifeguards are often employed by local govern-
ment councils and by companies running tourism
and leisure businesses, including theme parks,
cruise ships, hotels, and resorts. They provide super-
vision in open water environments (the ocean, surf
beaches), lakes, lagoons, rivers, and swimming
pools. In a widely cited statistic the United States
Lifesaving Association (USLA) reports that the
chance of drowning at a beach protected by life-
guards is estimated to be less than one in 18 million
(Branche & Stewart, 2001). The vast majority of
drowning events each year occur at unguarded loca-
tions (USLA, 2016). Expert opinion is that most
drowning cases are preventable through a variety of
Introduction
The terms “lifesaver” and “lifeguard” are used
around the world to describe individuals with spe-
cial training stationed to prevent accidents and
to respond to life-threatening emergencies in the
aquatic environment. Often the two terms are used
interchangeably and in most cases the general public
are not aware of any distinction (Newspoll, 2009).
However, for legal reasons it is important to note
that generally a “lifesaver,” at least in jurisdictions
like Australia, refers to a volunteer whereas a “life-
guard” is someone employed to provide aquatic
safety services.
TOURISM AND AQUATIC SAFETY:
NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY—SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK
JEFF WILKS
Griffith Health Institute for the Development of Education and Scholarship,
Griffith University, Logan Campus, QLD, Australia
The law requires a tourism operator to undertake due diligence in relation to reasonably foreseeable
risks. In the marine environment it is now well established that international tourists are a particular
“at risk” group for drowning and near drowning events due to factors such as poor swimming abil-
ity, unfamiliarity with aquatic environments and marine recreational activities, language, possible
alcohol and drug use, and general disorientation. The employment of lifeguards is increasingly rec-
ognized as an appropriate risk management and quality service response, as other popular injury pre-
vention initiatives may not be as successful with tourists. This article examines the law and practice
relating to the supply of lifeguards in tourist settings, suggesting that quality customer service has
moved beyond reliance on static safety signage.
Key words: Lifeguards; Tourism; Legal responsibilities; Risk management; Water safety
212 WILKS
outcomes should a submersion injury occur. They
also recommend that travelers should choose to
stay in hotels that provide lifeguard supervision and
inquire about the possibility of hiring lifeguards for
a large group or party situation. The reason for this
is anecdotal evidence suggests that in large-group
party settings, with multiple adults and children
swimming and playing around water, children may
be at increased risk because oftentimes, no one adult
is appointed supervisory responsibilities. Lack of
appropriate supervision is a persistent risk factor in
most child drowning incidents (Moran, 2009) with
tourism settings, in particular, full of additional dis-
tractions (gCaptain, 2013).
Lack of supervision was highlighted in an inno-
vative study by McKay, Brander, and Goff (2014)
who investigated the relationships between coastal
tourist parks in New South Wales (NSW), Australia
and the hazard rating and extent of lifeguard patrols
of their nearest surf beach. They found that the vast
majority (91%) of NSW coastal tourist parks are
closest to surf beaches rated as hazardous to swim-
mers. Of these beaches, 35% are completely unpa-
trolled by lifeguards while another 61% are only
partially patrolled (<25% per year). These findings
raise important questions regarding the provision
of lifeguarding services on these beaches, the avail-
ability and dissemination of beach safety material,
and the legal duty of care of tourist park operators.
Of particular concern is the risk of tourists being
caught in rip currents at unpatrolled beaches. Rip
currents are strong, narrow offshore flows of water
that occur on many of the world’s beaches and
represent a serious hazard to swimmers. Brander
and his colleagues (Brander, Dominey-Howes,
Champion, Del Vecchio, & Brighton, 2013) reported
that in Australia rip currents account for an aver-
age of 21 confirmed human fatalities per year—
more on average than bushfires, floods, and cyclones
combined. They are also the main cause of lifesaver
and lifeguard rescues (Brighton, Sherker, Brander,
Thompson, & Bradstreet, 2013). Several studies
confirm that international tourists are at particular
risk in this area—being unable to recognize a rip
and when shown a color photograph of a beach
that includes a rip they nominate the rip area as the
place they would choose to swim (Ballantyne, Carr,
& Hughes, 2005; Williamson, Hatfield, Sherker,
Brander, & Hayend, 2012).
strategies, one of which is to provide lifeguards in
public areas where people are known to swim and
to encourage swimming in those protected areas
(International Life Saving Federation [ILS], 2015).
This review first considers the vulnerability of
tourists in aquatic settings and the need for them to
receive additional assistance and supervision, both
as a legal responsibility for tour operators and as a
quality service for customers. Signage is then dis-
cussed, because the widespread use of a “No Life-
guard on Duty, Swim at Your Own Risk” notice is a
common way of warning the public they must take
responsibility for themselves around water. How-
ever, evidence suggests that by itself this practice
does not adequately discharge all legal duty of care
and quality customer care responsibilities for tour-
ism operators. The review then examines the role of
lifeguards: their training, qualifications, and service
activities. A case study from Fiji is offered to dem-
onstrate the value of lifeguards in a tourist resort
setting. The review concludes that static signage
by itself is not enough and the employment of life-
guards has many benefits in keeping tourists safe
around water.
Tourists and Water Safety
Drowning is a leading cause of tourist deaths
worldwide (Leggat & Wilks, 2013). Contributing
factors may include poor swimming ability, being
in an unfamiliar environment and participating in
unfamiliar activities, preexisting medical condi-
tions, especially cardiovascular, and risky holiday
behaviors (Wilks, Dawes, Pendergast, & Williamson,
2005). An unfamiliar environment and unfamiliar
activities such as body surfing at an ocean beach
can be further compounded by language barriers
where a visitor may not be able to read signs only
presented in the local language or to follow direc-
tions from a lifeguard (Wilks, 2005). Overall, in the
marine environment international visitors have been
recognized as an “at risk” group (Australian Water
Safety Council, 2004) requiring additional assis-
tance from tourism operators at the destination.
From their extensive review of water safety
and drowning prevention, Cortés, Hargarten, and
Hennes (2006) recommend that travelers should
always swim in areas supervised by a lifeguard
as the presence of lifeguards increases favorable
TOURISM AND AQUATIC SAFETY 213
purpose and certifying a standard of competency
not less than that of a holder of the pool lifeguard
award of the Hong Kong Life Saving Society.
(L.N. 39 of 2005)
What this means is that all public pools in Hong
Kong must have two lifeguards on duty in order to
remain open. According to the Food and Environ-
ment Hygiene Department there are 1,130 licensed
private swimming pools in Hong Kong. They are
all under the management of the private sector,
including hotels, residential estates, club houses,
youth centers, schools, and universities. In addi-
tion, there are a total of 41 gazetted public beaches
and 43 public swimming pool complexes managed
by the government’s Leisure and Cultural Services
Department, all requiring lifeguards in attendance.
It is now well established in law that those in
charge of beaches owe a duty of care to swimmers
using beaches under their control (Williams, 2008).
Usually local councils have this responsibility for
beaches as a “public space” but hotels and resorts
can also become involved through a duty of care
owed to their guests. In Enright v Hyatt Coolum
Resort an American businessman drowned at an
unpatrolled Australian beach while a guest of the
resort. His widow sued the resort and the local
government council that had control of the beach.
The court systematically reviewed the risk man-
agement mechanisms the resort had in place to pre-
vent a drowning incident. Justice Moynihan found
that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone
might swim in the surf and drown on an unpatrolled
beach, but that the facts in this case did not support
a breach of the defendants’ duty of care as the resort
had gone to considerable lengths to provide a safe
swimming environment for its guests. One of these
measures was the provision of a lifeguard at a pri-
vate beach belonging to the resort. Unfortunately,
the deceased swam outside the patrol hours and at
the nearby unpatrolled public beach.
It is now not only “reasonably foreseeable” in law
but an established fact that tourists on holidays will
swim in pools and beaches outside designated open-
ing times (Garcia, 2013; Wilks, 2008; Wilks et al.,
2005) and that being on holidays in an unfamiliar
environment they may need extra assistance in and
around water. Knowing this, many government
authorities, hotels, and resorts are now employing
professional lifeguards. In the State of Queensland,
Although public media campaigns about beach
and water safety may be effective for local residents
(Hatfield, Williamson, Sherker, Brander, & Hayen,
2012), international tourists in “holiday mode” are
less likely to be reached by television, brochures,
or even social media (Wilks, Kanasa, & Pender-
gast, 2015) so lifeguard supervision at the water is
a critical component of injury prevention.
Legal Duties for Tourism Operators
Tourism operators, like other businesses, must
comply with local legislation and this will vary
across jurisdictions. Two examples are offered to
demonstrate this for lifeguard services. In Roberts
v Iberotravel Limited the plaintiff Kevin Roberts,
aged six at the time of the incident, suffered a near
drowning event while on holiday with his family
in Majorca. Kevin was found floating unconscious
in the swimming pool and was carried by another
guest to the hotel reception. Even though there
were many guests at the pool when the incident
occurred, none offered to help. Kevin sustained
catastrophic brain damage. Under Spanish law the
hotel had a responsibility to provide pool atten-
dants who could swim and were trained in life sav-
ing and the practice of artificial respiration in cases
of asphyxia from immersion in water. His Honor
Justice Gibbs found:
There is no evidence that any staff or other person
connected with the hotel and who was in any way
trained in lifesaving or resuscitation responded to
the emergency. . . . In short there was, as I find, a
complete absence of any significant staff, equip-
ment or procedure to deal with any drowning
emergency.
His Honor found the hotel negligent both in
relation to Kevin’s immersion and their failure
to resuscitate.
In Hong Kong, Chapter 132 CA of the Swim-
ming Pools Regulation, Section 12 “Life Saving
and First Aid Attendants” provides that:
Every licensee of a swimming pool shall cause to
be in attendance at the pool, at all times during
which such pool is open to bathers, not less than 2
lifesaving attendants possessing valid certificates
of competency in life saving and first aid issued
by an association approved by the Director for that
214 WILKS
Provide a high level of guest satisfaction and •
safety through effective communication
Follow departmental policies and procedures•
Follow all safety and sanitation policies•
Other duties as assigned•
The Fairmont advertisement highlights the dual
roles expected of the lifeguard in guest safety and
in broader customer service. This is a consistent
theme across the advertised lifeguard positions
on the site reviewed and raises the question as to
whether the common practice of merely placing a
sign reading “No Lifeguard on Duty, Swim at Your
Own Risk” adequately discharges all legal duty of
care and quality customer care responsibilities?
Signage
“A sign, no matter how appropriate, is not an
automatic, absolute and permanent panacea” writes
Justice Ipp in the 2006 case of Great Lakes Shire
Council v Dederer. In that case a young boy was
injured jumping off a bridge that had clearly visible
“No Diving” pictorial signs. Similarly, commenting
on the near drowning of a 4-year-old boy on a Dis-
ney cruise ship maritime lawyer Jim Walker (2013)
observed that “a ‘no lifeguard on duty’ sign does
not legally exonerate a cruise line, or a hotel, or an
amusement park. It simply raises the issue whether
the sign was legally conspicuous enough to provide
an effective warning to the parents.”
One of the difficulties of signage in tourism is that
people on holidays in an unfamiliar environment
often do not pay attention to signs (Brannstrom,
Brown, Houser, Trimble, & Santos, 2015; Matthews,
Andronaco, & Adams, 2014). In an inquest into the
drowning deaths of three overseas visitors and one
Australian on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland,
Coroner Taylor (2004) noted:
Static warnings in the form of signs erected at fre-
quently visited beach sites perform an important
role in informing members of the public. How-
ever, the evidence establishes that they have only
limited impact for two reasons: Firstly, and most
importantly, because they are information sources
of last resort and offer information at a time when
anticipated enjoyment is likely to distract intend-
ing swimmers from serious contemplation of the
subject of the message.
the Australian Lifeguard Service supplies salaried
lifeguards to five lagoons and 77 beaches on behalf
of 16 local government councils, one corporation,
and nine state government departments.
In addition to safety, employing lifeguards pro-
vides a range of guest services for international
hotels and resorts. For example, Walt Disney Parks
and Resorts (2008) report that across its corporate
group it trains more than 1,200 lifeguards a year.
To gain a better understanding of lifeguard employ-
ment a search of job vacancies was conducted for
this review, using the employment site Job Monkey
(http://www.jobmonkeyjobs.com/) under the head-
ings hotel/resort/lodging and lifeguard. The search
revealed a range of leading hotel and resort brands
currently offering positions, including the Wyndham
Hotel Group, Hyatt Hotels and Resorts, Marriott
International, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts,
Disney Parks and Resorts, and Fairmont Hotels
& Resorts, to name a few.
An extract from one advertised position (Fairmont
Hotels & Resorts, Jaipur, India, http://www.jobmon
keyjobs.com/career/12134379/Lifeguard-Jaipur)
captures the intent of the lifeguard role in tourism
and hospitality:
Lifeguards. At Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, ensur-
ing the safety and wellbeing of our guests and
visitors is an integral part of our operations. As a
Lifeguard, your attentiveness and commitment to
safe practices will facilitate enjoyable aquatic and
waterside experiences for our guests.
Summary of Responsibilities
Reporting to the Security Manager, responsibili-
ties and essential job functions include but are not
limited to the following:
Consistently offer professional, friendly and •
engaging service
Welcome guests to the pool facility and ensure •
they have a safe and enjoyable experience
Assist in the cleanliness and the daily upkeep of •
the pool area
Guard and safeguard all guests/members using •
the pool facility
Ensure guests are aware of all services and •
activities available at the pool
Ensure that proper pool testing has taken place •
prior to guests using the facility
Ensure all guests are registered prior to using the •
pool and are aware of the rules of the facility
TOURISM AND AQUATIC SAFETY 215
of age or over and demonstrate high levels of fitness,
excellent rescue and people skills.
In addition, there is a fitness component that at all
times the Ocean Lifeguard must be capable of com-
pleting an 800 m pool swim (completed in a pool
no smaller than 25 m in length) in under 14 min-
utes. Further, a lifeguard must complete a Mission
in less than 23 minutes on an ocean course, which
involves a 400 m swim, 800 m run, 400 m rescue
board paddle, and a second 800 m run. Finally,
complete:
A 100 m rescue tube rescue of a patient 100m out •
to sea and return, and
A 200 m board rescue of a patient out at sea and •
return.
Recalling that rip currents are the main cause of
lifeguard rescues (Brighton et al., 2013) and consid-
ering that rips can reach speeds of up to 1 m/s and
quickly carry a swimmer considerable distances
offshore into deeper water (Brander & Short, 2001)
the fitness and stamina of ocean lifeguards is criti-
cal to their role.
Lifeguard Activities
Depending on their location lifeguards are called
upon for a range of safety services. Using the Austra-
lian Lifeguard Service Queensland again as an exam-
ple, Table 2 shows the range of actions performed.
Preventive actions include shark alarms (123),
searches (39), and lost children (198), as well as
actively moving bathers away from rip currents and
back to swimming in the designated patrol zone
between the red and yellow flags. First aid includes
Secondly, these signs often appear with—and in
the case of some signs—in much the same style as
regulatory signs. In such cases the urgency of the
message is likely to be lost if it is perceived as no
more than just another regulatory prohibition such
as by way of example, “No dogs allowed.”
I acknowledge and commend the considerable
efforts devoted to establishing signage efficacy
and adoption of a uniform standard. However,
I recommend that further consideration be given
to formulating a style of notice of life threaten-
ing dangers that is compelling by reason of promi-
nence, clarity, and strength of message. Despite
any improvements in style which may be able to
be introduced, static signage remains an informa-
tion source of last resort.
The view that static signage is an information
source of last resort, or at least is not to be relied
upon exclusively, is also shared by Surf Life Saving
Australia (2007). The organization emphasizes the
fact that the use of coastal safety signs, water safety
signs, and beach safety flags “should not replace
the need for proper safety education and instruc-
tion, or for training in accident prevention and the
actions to be taken in the event of an emergency, or
for the provision of lifeguards” (p. 70).
Lifeguard Training and Qualifications
Although there are some variations across juris-
dictions, lifeguards are generally trained to a very
high standard. Using the Australian Lifeguard Ser-
vice (ALS) as an example, Table 1 shows the require-
ments for the Ocean Lifeguard role in Queensland.
The codes relate to nationally recognized vocational
education qualifications. Lifeguards must be 18 years
Table 1
Qualifications and Minimum Requirements: Ocean Lifeguard
Surf Life Saving Bronze Medallion/Certificate II in Public Safety (Aquatic Rescue)
HLTAID003: Provide first aid
HLTAID007: Provide advanced resuscitation techniques
PUAEME004A: Provide emergency care for suspected spinal injury (spinal management or equivalent)
Silver Medallion Basic Beach Management (including components PUATAE002B, PUAOPE027A, BSBFLM312C)
Current motor car drivers license (provisional or higher)
Queensland marine license and a Queensland personal water craft (PWC) license
Hold or be able to obtain a Queensland Working with Children Blue Card
216 WILKS
services compared to outsourcing (Ernst & Young,
2004). The assessment was in response to serious
issues facing lifeguard services in Australia, in par-
ticular media reports highlighting the high risk and
potential liabilities of local government authorities
and service providers associated with the supply of
lifeguard services. The issues covered in the report
are still very pertinent today.
Through stakeholder workshops, interviews with
government officers, and industry representatives the
project confirmed the benefits of outsourcing lifeguard
services for some operations, especially in terms of:
Value for Money
Service provider supplies all necessary equipment, •
as well as qualified staff
Service provider takes responsibility for ongoing •
staff training, roistering, accreditation, and employ-
ment obligations for lifeguards
Client gains extra staff with first aid, CPR and •
emergency management skills and equipment if
required for incidents not directly related to the
water environment
Quality
Lifeguards will have consistent standards of accred-•
itation and training, with certification from an inter-
nationally recognized water safety agency
Client can draw on expertise for broader risk man-•
agement planning, such as appropriate signage and
identification of areas where client may be exposed
to risk
Transfer of Risk
Inclusion of lifeguards under the service provider’s •
insurance cover
Freeing up client’s time and resources if the life-•
guard service is externally managed
Use of already developed and tested expertise, writ-•
ten manuals, policies, and procedures by outsourc-
ing the lifeguard service.
Tourism and Hospitality Benefits
From a Lifeguard
As the Ernst & Young (2004) analysis shows,
there are many benefits for hotels and resorts in
employing lifeguards, in addition to their traditional
sentinel and supervisory roles. In their workplace
143 major wounds, 18 suspected spinal injuries, 51
fractures, 2,723 minor cuts/abrasions, 1,471 “other”
such as treatment for heat stroke and severe sunburn.
First aid is an increasingly important responsi-
bility for hotels and resorts (Wilks, 2013) and an
area where lifeguards can offer valuable customer
care. For example, Moran and Webber (2014)
reported on 8,437 incidents where New Zealand
lifeguards provided first aid to beachgoers. Most
injuries treated were minor (82%), with about half
being cuts and abrasions. Interestingly, 54% of
injuries were sustained in the water but one third
(32%) were attributed to land-based activities,
particularly walking/running on the beach.
In a different environment Hunsucker and
Davison (2011) analyzed 56,000 rescues from a
lifeguarded waterpark. They found that 62% of
the rescues during a typical season will be chil-
dren younger than 12 years and 42% of the rescues
will occur in 1.52 m (5 ft.) of water or less. They
concluded that lifeguard training needs to empha-
size that the shallow water has to be watched just
as carefully as deep water and the need for strict
parental supervision for children aged 12 years and
younger in an aquatic environment.
Delivering Lifeguard Services
Although corporations like Disney and Club
Med employ large numbers of in-house lifeguards,
economies of scale suggest that smaller operations
such as independent hotels and resorts, water parks,
and providers of aquatic recreation, all of which
have legal duties of care to their customers, might
consider outsourcing lifeguard services.
In 2004 Surf Life Saving Queensland commis-
sioned accounting and management firm Ernst
& Young to provide a cost/benefit assessment of
the provision of in-house professional lifeguard
Table 2
ALSQ Lifeguard Actions During
the 2014–2015 Season
Lives saved (rescues) 1,435
Resuscitations (CPR) 10
First aid treatments 12,458
Marine stings 5,756
Preventive actions 522,462
TOURISM AND AQUATIC SAFETY 217
qualified at the Surf Rescue Certificate and/or
Bronze Medallion level, 5 Rescue Water Craft
operators, 4 Silver Medallion Patrol Captains, and
30 staff qualified in first aid. The development of
skills, especially in first aid, benefitted all areas of
the resort and extended into the wider local com-
munity. (Wilks, 2010)
Conclusion
The common practice of placing a sign reading
“No Lifeguard on Duty, Swim at Your Own Risk”
at unsupervised water sites will continue because,
in many cases, it will be argued by those in control
of the site that it is a reasonable measure under the
circumstances. If so, this decision should take into
account:
A consideration of the magnitude of the risk and
degree of the probability of its occurrence, along
with the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of
taking alleviating action and any other conflicting
responsibilities which the defendant may have. (per
Justice Mason in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt)
In the case of international tourists, the decision
should take into consideration their recognized “at
risk” status due to factors such as poor swimming
ability, unfamiliarity with aquatic environments
and marine recreational activities, language, pos-
sible alcohol and drug use, and general disorien-
tation. The decision should also be made after a
proper risk assessment and factoring in other con-
siderations such as the value lifeguards bring to
the guest experience, particularly the many subtle
preventive actions of guards that ensure guests are
assisted to stay safe.
This combination of both safety and quality ser-
vice for guests is reflected in the advertisements for
lifeguard employment by many international hotels
and resorts. For example, a part-time lifeguard posi-
tion advertised at Hong Kong Disneyland Resort is
described as:
At the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, dream jobs
do exist. After all, a company built on:
imagination and wonder means the work will defi-
nitely be interesting. The job of Lifeguard Cast
Members at the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort is
lifeguards have a responsibility for aquatic risk
assessment and management, including signage
review. Depending on their terms of employment
they can also be responsible for compliance with
industry guidelines and developing an emergency
action plan. Examples of industry guidance are the
Royal Life Saving Society-Australia (2007, loose
leaf continuous updates) “Guidelines for Water
Safety in Hotels, Motels, Camping and Caravan
Grounds”; the Federation of Tour Operators (2007)
“Preferred Code of Practice,” and the more recent
ABTA (2012) “Tourism Accommodation Health
and Safety Technical Guide.” Although each has no
formal, legal, or regulatory status they nevertheless
represent the best advice of expert personnel.
Even when they are not directly supervising
guests in the water lifeguards are a valuable resource
in first aid and emergency response for the property,
as demonstrated by the following case study.
Outrigger on the Lagoon Fiji Resort
Van Den Enden (2009) provided some use-
ful insights into resort lifeguard training in Fiji.
He reported that following a major incident in
2003 where two guests from a neighboring resort
drowned in the lagoon and two staff were hospital-
ized as a result of their rescue attempt, the Outrig-
ger on the Lagoon Fiji Resort requested assistance
from Surf Life Saving Australia. Two lifeguard
training programs were provided. The initial pro-
gram involved an aquatic safety and risk manage-
ment assessment (including signage), staff training,
and advice on lifesaving and rescue equipment. In
the months following the initial training program
20 guests were rescued, of which 18 belonged to
nearby resorts.
During the second program a holistic approach
to water safety and first aid was implemented. This
saw the integration of security staff and bar staff into
the training as first responders, especially at night,
and increased total coverage of the resorts’ aquatic
areas, child care center, rooms, and gym. Follow-
ing the training, staff reported they had successfully
treated a variety of injuries, including first response
to a serious car accident outside the resort.
At the completion of the second program the
resort had 13 staff from Activities and Security
218 WILKS
Going forward, we should see safety not as a nega-
tive but rather a key feature of quality customer
service. Lifeguards employed to assist visitors and
enhance their enjoyment in aquatic settings are a
good example. By treating safety as an important
element in genuine customer care we can add value
to research and practice across a range of marine
tourism experiences.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this topic was presented
at the 8th International Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism, Hawaii, November 10–13, 2015.
Biographical Note
Jeff Wilks is Managing Director of Marine Tourism Aus-
tralia, a company specializing in travel health, safety, and
security. Dr. Wilks is a qualified lawyer, a health psycholo-
gist, and is Adjunct Professor of Health at Griffith Univer-
sity, Queensland, Australia. He has worked as a scuba diving
instructor, has written extensively on marine safety, and
serves as Co-Editor of the journal Travel Law Quarterly.
References
ABTA. (2012). Tourism accommodation health and safety
technical guide. London, UK: Author.
Australian Water Safety Council. (2004). National water
safety plan 2004–2007. Sydney, Australia: Author.
Ballantyne, R., Carr, N., & Hughes, K. (2005). Between the
flags: An assessment of domestic and international uni-
versity students’ knowledge of beach safety in Australia.
Tourism Management, 26, 617–622.
Branche, C. M., & Stewart, S. (Eds). (2001). Lifeguard effec-
tiveness: A report of the working group. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Brander, R., & Short, A. D. (2001). Flow kinematics of low-
energy rip current systems. Journal of Coastal Research,
17(2), 468–481.
Brander, R., Dominey-Howes, D., Champion, C., Del
Vecchio, O., & Brighton, B. (2013). A new perspective
on the Australian rip current hazard. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences, 13, 1687–1690.
Brannstrom, C., Brown, H. L., Houser, C., Trimble, S.,
& Santos, A. (2015). “You can’t see them from sitting
here”: Evaluating beach user understanding of a rip cur-
rent warning sign. Applied Geography, 56, 61–70.
Brighton, B., Sherker, S., Brander, R., Thompson, M., &
Bradstreet, A. (2013). Rip current related drowning
deaths and rescues in Australia 2004-2011. Natural Haz-
ards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 1069–1075.
Cantrill, B. (2008). The place of warning signs in avert-
ing risks. In J. Wilks (Ed.), Beach safety and the law:
to ensure the well-being of our Guests, keep pool
areas clean, answer Guest questions, and provide
information and assistance. (http://www.jobmon
keyjobs.com/career/13030984/Lifeguard-Part-
Time-Hk-Disneyland-Lantau-Island)
One of the difficulties in fully capturing the value
of lifeguards for hotels and resorts is the lack of
publicly available information on the job they do.
Limited statistics on first aid treatments and rescues
(lives saved) involving tourists/visitors provide some
indication (Harada, Goto, & Nathanson, 2011), but
they tend to be figures collected by government
agencies or lifesaving associations and mostly relate
to public beaches. It would be valuable to fully
appreciate the range of preventive actions under-
taken by lifeguards, actions that avoided rescues
and injury in the first place, particularly in hotel
and resort swimming pools and lagoons. Similarly,
the range of positive guest services lifeguards pro-
vide in addition to their safety role. This informa-
tion would greatly assist tourism operators should
an accident occur, as it puts quality customer care
in perspective.
In summary, hotels and resorts have legal and
practical duties of care to their guests that clearly
go well beyond putting up and relying on a sign
saying “No Lifeguard on Duty: Swim at Your Own
Risk” (Wilks, 2013; Wilks & Davis, 2003). Static
signage is only one component in a comprehensive
water safety program (Cantrill, 2008; ILS, 2015),
with the employment of lifeguards increasingly
recognized as a very appropriate risk management
and quality service response.
Learning From the Past, Looking to the Future
The 8th International Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism confirmed that the marine environ-
ment is full of the color, excitement, and magic that
makes for a wonderful tourism experience, espe-
cially for visitors enjoying new and novel activities
in and around water. However, the sea, in particu-
lar, can be unforgiving and mistakes made around
water are often serious or even fatal. The tourism
industry does not like to talk about things going
wrong, so risk management and visitor protection
are difficult areas to work in as they seem to go
against the “ethos” of tourism. This is not the case.
TOURISM AND AQUATIC SAFETY 219
Royal Life Saving Australia. (2007). Guidelines for water
safety in hotels, motels, camping and caravan grounds.
Sydney, Australia: Author.
Surf Life Saving Australia. (2007). Australian coastal public
safety guidelines (1st ed.), consultative version. Sydney,
Australia: Author.
Taylor, K. O. (2004). In the matter of an inquest into the
causes and circumstances surrounding the death of Chi-
raag Shandrikiti Shah, Scott Peter Davis, Peter Jansa
and Holger Lankes. Coroner’s Court, April 16, Noosa,
Queensland
United States Lifesaving Association. (2016). 2011–2015
national lifesaving statistics. Retrieved from http://arc.
usla.org/Statistics/current.asp?Statistics=5
Van Den Enden, T. (2009). Lifeguard training for tourism
resorts: A case study from Fiji. Paper presented at the
6th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress,
June 25, Port Elizabeth -Nelson Mandela Bay, South
Africa.
Walker, J. (2013, April 1). Imperfect parents & corporate
irresponsibility: Why no lifeguards on Disney cruise
ships? Cruise Line News. Retrieved from http://www.
cruiselawnews.com/2013/04/articles/passenger-rights/
imperfect-parents-corporate-irresponsibility-why-no-
lifeguards-on-disney-cruise-ships/
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. (2008). Report on safety.
Burbank, CA: Author.
Wilks, J. (2005, August 22). Surf Life Saving Australia sub-
mission for the inquest into the deaths of Matthew Vesper,
John Speakman, Taha Bashar and Sanghun Kim. Invited
submission to the Gosford (New South Wales) Coroner,
Magistrates’ Chambers, Gosford.
Wilks, J. (Ed.) (2008). Beach safety and the law: Australian
evidence. Sydney, Australia: Surf Life Saving Australia.
Wilks, J. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Benefits
for hosts and guests. Paper presented at the Fulbright
60th Anniversary Symposium, Sustainable Societies in
the Tropical World, August 18, Cairns, Australia.
Wilks, J. (2013). First aid responsibilities for hotels and
resorts. Travel Law Quarterly, 5, 292–296.
Wilks, J., & Davis, R. (2003). Duty of care to resort guest who
drowned. International Travel Law Journal, 10, 77–79.
Wilks, J., Dawes, P., Pendergast, D., & Williamson, B. (2005).
Tourists and beach safety in Queensland, Australia. Tour-
ism in Marine Environments, 1(2), 121–128.
Wilks, J., Kanasa, H., & Pendergast, D. (2015). Beach safety
education for tourists in Australia. Paper presented at the
8th International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tour-
ism, November 11, Kona, Hawaii.
Williams, M. (2008). A local government perspective: “What
[else] could possibly go wrong?” In J. Wilks (Ed.), Beach
safety and the law: Australian evidence (pp. 57–77).
Sydney, Australia: Surf Life Saving Australia.
Williamson, A., Hatfield, J., Sherker, S., Brander, R., &
Hayend, A. (2012). A comparison of attitudes and
knowledge of beach safety in Australia for beachgoers,
rural residents and international tourists. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36, 385–391.
Australian evidence (pp. 79–103). Sydney, Australia: Surf
Life Saving Australia.
Cortés, L. M., Hargarten, S. W., & Hennes, H. M. (2006).
Recommendations for water safety and drowning preven-
tion for travelers. Journal of Travel Medicine, 13, 21–34.
Ernst & Young. (2004). Cost/benefit assessment of the pro-
vision of in-house professional lifeguard services com-
pared to outsourcing. Confidential report prepared for
Surf Life Saving Queensland. Brisbane: Ernst & Young
Assurance and Advisory Business Services.
Federation of Tour Operators. (2007). Preferred code of
practice. Lewes, UK: Author.
Garcia, J. (2013, September 26). Disney World to lock
hotel swimming pools overnight. Orlando Sentinel.
Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-
09-26/business/os-disney-locking-swimming-pools-
20130926_1_walt-disney-world-pools-lifeguards
gCaptain. (2013, April 9). Do deadly distractions lead to
drowning? Parents question cruise line policy as boy
remains in coma. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.
forbes.com/sites/gcaptain/2013/04/09/do-deadly-dis
tractions-lead-to-drowning-parents-question-cruise-line-
policy-as-boy-remains-in-coma/#6df7e8d4581f
Hatfield, J., Williamson, A., Sherker, S., Brander, R., &
Hayen, A. (2012). Development and evaluation of an
intervention to reduce rip current related beach drown-
ing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 46, 45–51.
Harada, S. Y., Goto, R. S., & Nathanson, A. T. (2011). Anal-
ysis of lifeguard-recorded data at Hanauma Bay, Hawaii.
Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 22, 72–76.
Hunsucker, J. L., & Davison, S. J. (2011). Analysis of rescue
and drowning history from a lifeguarded waterpark envi-
ronment. International Journal of Injury Control and
Safety Promotion, 18(4), 277–284.
International Life Saving Federation. (2015). Drowning
prevention strategies. A framework to reduce drowning
deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions
engaged in lifesaving. Leuven, Belgium: Author.
Leggat, P., & Wilks, J. (2013). Travellers’ safety and security.
In J. Zuckerman (Ed.), Principles and practice of travel
medicine (2nd ed., pp. 588–600). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
McKay, C., Brander, R. W., & Goff, J. (2014). Putting tour-
ists in harms way—Coastal tourist parks and hazardous
unpatrolled surf beaches in New South Wales, Australia.
Tourism Management 45, 71–84.
Matthews, B., Andronaco, R., & Adams, A. (2014). Warn-
ing signs at beaches: Do they work? Safety Science, 62,
312–318.
Moran, K. (2009). Parent/caregiver perceptions and practice
of child water safety at the beach. International Journal
of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 16, 215–221.
Moran, K., & Webber, J. (2014). Leisure-related injuries at
the beach: An analysis of lifeguard incident report forms
in New Zealand, 2007–12. International Journal of
Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 21(1), 68–74.
Newspoll. (2009). Lifeguard vs lifesaver research—Summary
report. Prepared for Surf Life Saving Australia. Surry
Hills: Author.
CopyrightofTourisminMarineEnvironmentsisthepropertyofCognizant,LLCandits
contentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthe
copyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremail
articlesforindividualuse.
